Friday Several kernel developers issued a position paper criticizing the GPLv3 drafts. That prompted Software Freedom Law Center chairman Eben Moglen to issue a 'renewed invitation' yesterday to kernel developers to participate in the GPLv3 process. Linus Torvalds responded to Moglen's statement by saying that his position on the license is clear and that he's "fed up" with the FSF.

"Strong arming you how? Has he hooked you into the GPLV3 leash? Got a rectal V3 probe? Dude you can choose not to use it...."

You haven't been following the GPL3 debate at all have you... Again, and this is the last time I am going to say it (cause I am sick of repeating myself over and over for the benefit of those who are ill informed and don't know what is going on), the patent lawsuit retaliation clauses in GPL3 are a strongarm tactic that businesses are not going to go for. And it will kill open source software in business. I've been saying it for months. And the kernel developers are saying it now as well.

There is no difference on patents in v3 vs v2. It is just explicit instead of implicit.

The difference is about DRM, and that is no different either. It is just explictit instead of implicit. You are not allowed to take away the four freedoms. And in case use of DRM takes away the four freedoms, you have to allow that people can crack your DRM. We can do that already legally, so it doesn't matter. The only difference is that we won't be take into custody upon arrival in USA.

What do the "four freedoms" have to do with anything? The license is what it says and there are no "four freedoms" in the GPLv2, neither in the preample, the terms and conditions, or the suggestions on how to apply it. The "four freedoms" is a slogan, not a license.